--- Begin Message ---
1. Flight attendant's last words contradict Federal authorities
disinformation.
2. Government lied about "threat to Air Force One" and
messages received.
Item #1:
----- Original Message -----
To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 7:36 PM
Subject: Last Words of Flight Attendent .....
> FYI .... A small item in the many posted notes on the '911' attacks or is
it?
> This reporting of the final words of a flight attendant trying to
communicate
> their best firsthand knowledge of a hijacking in progress may be long
> considered in future analysis of these events. Do you wonder too, just who
> was assigned to the seat numbers she read off? From NG / Original source
for
> this story was the BBC. Ronn 01/29/01
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: SEAT NUMBERS DON'T MATCH !
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (zak ah'zuban)
> Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 4:10 PM
> Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> BBC reports that a flight attendant
> on board Flight 11, that hit WTC, called
> ground staff in Boston to report hijack
> in progress...only one problem...she
> said there were only 4 hijackers, while
> the FBI said 5, and she called out the
> seat numbers of the 4...those seats
> don't match the seat numbers of the men
> with arabic sounding names who were assigned
> responsibility for the hijack afterwards
> by FBI...?????
>
> Quote from the BBC:
> "Ms Sweeney's account of the hijacking
> provides unique evidence of what took place
> but it also appears to conflict with previous
> information.
>
> The FBI has named five hijackers on board
> Flight 11, whereas Ms Sweeney spotted only
> four.
>
> Also, the seat numbers she gave were
> different from those registered in the hijackers'
> names. " [ end of quote ]
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1556000/1556096.stm
>
Item #2
They lied about the threat to Air Force One, about receiving threatening
messages etc.
====
Key excerpt (full Rixon text below):
If Bush lied about his activities on the day of the attacks, why should
anyone assume he has not lied about the government's investigation, the
identity of the perpetrators, the motives and aims of US war preparations,
and the intent and scope of expanded police powers demanded by his
administration to wiretap, search and seize, and detain suspects?
This entire episode provides ample grounds for the American people to treat
all claims by the government with the utmost suspicion and not accept any of
its assertions without independent and verifiable information.
The duplicity of the government is all the more significant since the Bush
administration has taken the position that people not only in the US, but
throughout the world, must accept on faith its assertions that Osama bin
Laden and his Al Qaeda network are responsible for the attacks, and that the
Islamic fundamentalist Taliban government in Afghanistan bears direct
responsibility because it harbors bin Laden.
It is quite possible that bin Laden played a role in the September 11
atrocities. To date, however, Bush has offered no evidence, and, apparently,
has no intention of doing so. Instead the administration insists that the
American people place blind trust in the White House and give it a blank
check for waging war and trampling on civil liberties.
The phony Air Force One story not only exposes the duplicitous methods of
the
Bush administration, it also underscores the shamelessness and complicity of
the media. When the White House came out with the story of a terrorist phone
threat against the president's plane, the media uncritically repeated it,
with banner headlines and chilling segments on the evening news. As it has
throughout the present crisis, the media functioned unabashedly as a propaga
nda arm of the government.
==============
(Did White House Lie About
Threat To Airforce One?) / this posting from RMN forum 9/29/01 The naked
truth? Prior knowledge seems possible. The Untruths? Watch the spinning
(spin) words. Ronn 9/29/01
-----------------------
WTC: WHERE WAS PRESIDENT BUSH?
Posted By: Rixon (RMN)
Date: Saturday, 29 September 2001,
In a time of national crisis you would expect the national leader to be at
the centre of power, at the helm, ready to take command and give orders. So
where was President Bush on September the 11th?
He started the day in a junior school reading stories to small kids in a
school in Florida. It was as a good a place to be in a time of crisis, the
Governor, President Bush's brother, had renewed a State of Emergency charter
just 4 days previously.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 01-17
On September 7, 2001, Florida's governor revoked the old Executive Order and
issued a new one. In the new one he added one additional paragraph, i.e.
"Section 3" (the old Section 3, now became Section 4), and it speaks of
"acts
of terrorism" on ports in Florida.
"... The Florida National Guard may order selected members to state active
duty for service to the State of Florida pursuant to Section 250.06(4),
Florida Statutes, to assist FDLE in performing port security training and
inspections. Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that
may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to
protect life and property from such acts of terrorism, and inhibiting the
smuggling of illegal drugs into the State of Florida, the use of the Florida
National Guard to support FDLE in accomplishing port security training and
inspections is "extraordinary support to law enforcement" as used in Section
250.06(4), Florida Statutes. .."
- FL EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 01-261
What is interesting is that the old Executive Order anticipated a revision
in
the year 2003, unless revoked sooner. It was revoked sooner on September 7,
2001, 4 days before the attack on World Trade Center and Pentagon, and the
new Executive Order is identical to the old Executive Order, with the one
exception of the new paragraph that speaks of "acts of terrorism". The
Seirra
Times Sept 28 2001"
Courtesy centrexnews.com
Thereafter President Bush took to the skies in Air Force One. Instead of
going to a secure base and taking command in a national emergency, he flew
about; here and there from Forida to Nebraska. In fact you'd almost think
that the WTC attack had frightened him into running; and thereafter the
White
House spin doctors helped to cover his tracks. Of course it's only natural
for anyone to feel fear, even Presidents. But for a leader to put his own
personal safety before his subjects is another story, as the following
reveals...
>From the World Socialist webpage, courtesy rense.com
The White House has been caught in a lie about the alleged terrorist threat
against Air Force One which it had cited as the reason for President Bush's
absence from Washington for most of September 11. According to reports by
CBS
News and the Washington Post, White House officials have acknowledged that
the Secret Service never received a phone call warning of a direct threat to
the president's airplane. The government's reversal has gone largely
unreported in the media.
In the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon, Bush's movements became a matter of controversy within
political and media circles. As the destruction in New York and Washington
unfolded and unconfirmed reports emerged of a car bomb at the State
Department and the danger of further hijackings, Bush, who began the day in
Florida, was whisked from one military installation to another by the Secret
Service.
Looking pale and shaken, he taped a brief initial message from an
underground
bunker at an air force base in Louisiana. Several hours later, when all
non-US military aircraft in American air space had been grounded, Bush was
flown to another fortified location at the Strategic Air Command
headquarters
in Nebraska. The president did not return to Washington until 7 p.m., nearly
10 hours after the initial attack.
Bush's failure to quickly return to Washington sparked pointed criticism,
including from within the Republican Party. Under conditions of a massive
attack on US civilians, involving the destruction of a symbol of American
financial power and the partial destruction of the nerve center of the
American military, any appearance of indecisiveness or panic on the part of
the US president was of great concern to the American political and
financial
elite.
New York Times columnist William Safire, a one-time Nixon aide and fixture
within the Republican Party, suggested that Bush had panicked and all but
abandoned his post in the first hours of the crisis. Writing in a September
12 op-ed piece, Safire said, "Even in the first horrified moments, this was
never seen as a nuclear attack by a foreign power. Bush should have insisted
on coming right back to the Washington area, broadcasting, live and calm, f
rom a secure facility not far from the White House."
Stung by such criticisms, Bush's chief political strategist Karl Rove and
other top administration officials worked feverishly to reassure the
political, corporate and military establishment, and bolster Bush's
authority
among the population at large. By the afternoon of September 12, the
Associated Press and Reuters were carrying stories, widely circulated
throughout the media, that were intended to diffuse criticism of Bush's
actions the previous day. They quoted a White House spokesperson saying,
"There was real and credible information that the White House and Air Force
One were targets of terrorist attacks and that the plane that hit the
Pentagon was headed for the White House." White House Press Secretary Ari
Fleischer repeated this claim at an afternoon news briefing that same day,
saying the Secret Service had "specific and credible information" that the
White House and Air Force One were potential targets.
In a further column in the New York Times on September 13, entitled "Inside
the Bunker," Safire described a conversation with an unnamed "high White
House official," who told him, "A threatening message received by the Secret
Service was relayed to the agents with the president that 'Air Force One is
next.'" Safire continued: "According to the high official, American code
words were used showing a knowledge of procedures that made the threat
credible."
Safire reported that this information was confirmed by Rove, who told him
Bush had wanted to return to Washington but the Secret Service "informed him
that the threat contained language that was evidence that the terrorists had
knowledge of his procedures and whereabouts."
Two weeks after these astonishing claims, the administration has all but
admitted it concocted the entire story. CBS Evening News reported September
25 that the call "simply never happened."
The fact that top officials, at a time of extraordinary crisis and public
anxiety, lied to protect the president's image has immense implications. If,
within 24 hours of the terror attacks, the White House was giving out
disinformation to deceive the American public and world opinion, then none
of
the claims made by the government from September 11 to the present can be
taken for good coin.
If Bush lied about his activities on the day of the attacks, why should
anyone assume he has not lied about the government's investigation, the
identity of the perpetrators, the motives and aims of US war preparations,
and the intent and scope of expanded police powers demanded by his
administration to wiretap, search and seize, and detain suspects?
This entire episode provides ample grounds for the American people to treat
all claims by the government with the utmost suspicion and not accept any of
its assertions without independent and verifiable information.
The duplicity of the government is all the more significant since the Bush
administration has taken the position that people not only in the US, but
throughout the world, must accept on faith its assertions that Osama bin
Laden and his Al Qaeda network are responsible for the attacks, and that the
Islamic fundamentalist Taliban government in Afghanistan bears direct
responsibility because it harbors bin Laden.
It is quite possible that bin Laden played a role in the September 11
atrocities. To date, however, Bush has offered no evidence, and, apparently,
has no intention of doing so. Instead the administration insists that the
American people place blind trust in the White House and give it a blank
check for waging war and trampling on civil liberties.
The phony Air Force One story not only exposes the duplicitous methods of
the
Bush administration, it also underscores the shamelessness and complicity of
the media. When the White House came out with the story of a terrorist phone
threat against the president's plane, the media uncritically repeated it,
with banner headlines and chilling segments on the evening news. As it has
throughout the present crisis, the media functioned unabashedly as a propaga
nda arm of the government.
But when the White House, two weeks later, retracted the story, most
networks
failed to even report the fact, as did leading newspapers such as the New
York Times. The Washington Post, for its part, buried the government's
about-face on its inside pages. No media outlet made an issue of this
incriminating admission, or discussed its broader implications.
Well before the official retraction, it was widely accepted in the
Washington
press corps that the administration had made up the Air Force One story. In
her column in the September 23 New York Times, Maureen Dowd noted that Karl
Rove had "called around town, trying to sell reporters the story? now widely
discredited ?that Mr. Bush didn't immediately return to Washington on Sept.
11 because the plane that was headed for the Pentagon may have really been
targeting the White House, and that Air Force One was in jeopardy, too"
(emphasis added).
Dowd and her colleagues believed the government was lying, but the public
had
no way of knowing the story was not credible since the news media refused to
openly challenge it.
There may be another reason for the silence of the press. The story handed
out on September 12 by Rove, Fleischer and other White House officials
raised
issues even more explosive and potentially damning than Bush's feckless
behavior on September 11.
Safire pointed to one such question in his September 13 New York Times
column. Referring to the White House claim that the terrorists had knowledge
of secret information about Air Force One, Safire asked: "How did they get
the code-word information and transponder know-how that established their
mala fides? That knowledge of code words and presidential whereabouts and
possession of secret procedures indicates that the terrorists may have a
mole
in the White House, that, or informants in the Secret Service, FBI, FAA, or
CIA."
Safire's entirely valid question as to how a supposed terrorist could have
knowledge of such top-secret and sensitive information has never been taken
u
p by the media at large, or addressed by the government.
If, indeed, such a phone call took place, it would raise an alternate theory
of contact between the terrorists and one or another agency of the
government
at least as plausible as that suggested by Safire: Namely, that the call was
not a threat, but rather a tip-off from an informant for the US who had
knowledge of the plans and activities of the terrorists.
The World Socialist Web Site does not claim to have an answer to these
questions. But it is legitimate and necessary to raise them, especially
since
they are posed by the government's own statements.
One thing is clear: the government lied to the people of America and the
world. Either it lied on September 12 when it issued the story of the threat
to Air Force One, or it lied two weeks later when it retracted the story.
The
millions of people who are being told they must accept unbridled militarism
and the gutting of their democratic rights in the name of a holy war against
terrorism must draw the appropriate conclusions from this indisputable fact.
Courtesy rense.com
--- End Message ---
